mæŋksmən

Respect to anyone that can watch it all in one go.

Looks like it acted like a bear with a sore head, boom boom.

Ive had to put that on pause at 3 mins, honestly it was making me feel a little sick in the guts, that free climbing is unreal.

Whether he would or would not is immaterial he chooses to live his life here. lhiu lhiu {translation} nanu nanu

Thats quite a good reply that gladys. I think the extra directors fees paid for the subsidiaries on top of their M.E.A. salaries/fees gave mr proffitt et al alot of leverage however. An extra 25k to 65k per annum is alot to lose once youve had a sniff of it.

Not trousering gladys, more like proffitteering.

So your establishing that mr proffitt was on the board that in your opinion set precedent with the midland bank loans, you start proceedings by announcing that those dealings were somehow responsible for the barclays loans being drawn on a fashion that skirted direct contact about the barclays loans with either tynwald or treasury. Can you show me where the attorney general says a precedent set, i must have missed that bit or maybe its still to come. it is 165 pages after all. Who is !1THEY!! please keep to specifics without all your padding, the report is very disillusioned with their antics from what i am reading. Did the midland accept a comfort letter from its own chairman as collateral enough to loan £50 mill. oops sorry 125 million £££££. Did the midland bank loan millions to the M.E.A. or its GUARANTORED Subsidiary when enron burned, no they tendered on the understanding that treasury were informed, the same decision the i.o.m. bank tender was based on, so they were ignored and they didnt even go to the pretence of tendering for the 50 mill loan. 12.28 No tendering process was carried out in respect of the second loan on the basis that it was a relatively short period of time after the first loan had been drawn down. Were not talking here about !! THE M.E.A. !!, this only really concerns 3 people in the main, the 3 people you know fine well sought that. !! no doubt a culture which encouraged the breakdown in communications existed !! seems to me it was actively encouraged. Seems to me they were very well prepared, they had consulted a london specialist about their previous dealings and the current setup, they also sought and paid for advice from caines both for themselves and for barclays, advices caines would not divulge when asked to, that word THEY is very versatile, when i use it, i use it in reference to 3 people. See here you just simply make appeal to pity, no-one has or is blaming him for everything as you well know, but it meshes so well with the rest of your post and is again no more than emotional padding. Again you throw in a red herring to gently nudge us in the direction you want, stick to the loans and proffitts part in them if you want to take on the white knight in shinning amour then fine, dont dodge the awkward parts with padding. Dunno whether this comes under strawman, opinion, sweeping generalisation or just sheer rhetoric to the cause, OR ALL. The bolded part is the only thing of reference in your entire post, the rest is simply strawman/men. Your right i remember that, that was also the company that there are no minutes avaliable for. Total Bull - the minute book was referred to extensively in the PKF report. They have an entire section chapter 11 devoted to the MEA, MCC and PGT board minutes and actions. You are talking total and utter bollocks. PKF report p127: MCC Board minutes 11.4 We have reviewed the MCC Board minutes from April 2001 to date. No-one said there were no minutes AT ALL did they. i should have expressed myself better, we will get to decisions made that are un-minuted later.

Why didnt you just say Option 1. Never let a chance of a 200 word reply go begging do ya.

no its called a back-pedal. do you really believe cheekyboy thinks he just trousered 180 mill, i think not. Your right ofcourse about the thread topic, but since when has that mattered here. You avoided giving your opinion on options 1 or 2, and !A get it done kinda guy! just doesn't cut it{you've used too many PROBABLYS and COULD/s. 1] That mr proffitt acted in good faith at all times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A.,to the manx government/people his employer. 2} That mr proffitt acted in his own best interests at times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A. However we all have differing opinion of motive/s i can live with that. Could you or i find out how much mr proffitt was payed at the time by barclays, or would directors bonuses of publically owned companies be private. and ps. If 2 options are not enough, then give us a fallacy free third option. I can add an option 3 , i could call it the smoke and mirrors option. people as enboldened in option 1 is a fallacy that i knew of when writing the post, if you want to be picky, take your pick Argumentum ad numerum / Argumentum ad populum, leave people out however its a different story. I think they are the only 2 logical explanations, you first have to decide which holds true to you, before proceeding to discuss the matter, there is no grey area.

My understanding is that the loan was to a subsidiary company of the MEA and not the MEA itself. Therefore the matter would have had to have been approved in accordance with its mem & arts, which I have to admit I have not reviwed, but presumably the approval that was required was the majority of the board of directors. Prima facie I expect it would have legally been in order as both sides presumably had lawyers advising, and in general lawyers the lawyers for the borrower require a legal opinion, which would involve sight iof minutes, review of mem and arts confirming the borrower had the relative powers etc. I will repeat for the last time as that this is the wrong thread for this discussion that as far as I see it rings may have been run around government and they were left with little choice in the matter, but once the power station had been planned and building started in reality could the overnment have pulled the funding plug or not agreed aditional loans from wherever. I do not see that there was any fleecing of the Manx tax payer, but rather a complete breakdown in relationhips which nobody did anything about as there was more than enough leeway to be able to carry on almost autonomously without reference to anybody else with the realisation that ultimately that nobody was able to pull the plug on the project. The bolded part is the only thing of reference in your entire post, the rest is simply strawman/men. Your right i remember that, that was also the company that there are no minutes avaliable for. Now for some logic as you cannot seem to entice yourself away from the strawman rhetoric of muddying the water. The collapse of enron provided means and opportunity. Thinning the loop of people that needed to know by slieght of hand with a subsidiary made the situation even seedier in my opinion. Reading strawmanned grey areas is getting tiresome. Feel free to find a fallacy in the 2 following appraisals of mike proffitts actions during his time at the M.E.A. 1] That mr proffitt acted in good faith at all times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A.,to the manx government/people his employer. 2} That mr proffitt acted in his own best interests at times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A. There are no grey areas either he acted as he did in an honest fashion, and that the circumvention of proceedure is all just an extremely unfortunate set of circumstance created by the collapse of enron. Or the collapse of enron was viewed as an opportunity to gain personally through other business interests.

But let us say the MEA had toddled along to the Treasury for approval would have anything different happened. Very unlikely. Aye PK in lost logins world why bother with competitive tendering. Just sign up with someone and let them charge what they like.

LL. You still haven't told us who else needed to be in the loop with proffitt to sign the loan/s, for and on behalf of the M.E.A. with barclays. It is my proofless contention that the loan/s from barclays were a foregone conclusion for months prior, and i also contend that no-one on the M.E.A. board {minuted} were aware of proffitts involvement with barclays, excepting the finance officer, until 1 day before he signed for the first loan {minuted}. quote lost login. Do you actually know anything about banking and business. There is no way Profitt or any one person would have had the power to authority to approve such a loan or lending. The decision would have been taken by the banks credit committee. end quote. So who else had to be in on the loop, apart from barclays representative's who mike proffitt could have a discussion with anytime he wanted. Or do you except that only proffitt and and his finance officer were the only 2 people apart from barclays staff who knew about the loan/s until 1 day before it was signed off. And even then it was only those present at the M.E.A. board meeting. And PS. the reason his representitives did so well in negotiating his re-payment/s down on the fraudulent use of M.E.A. funds, was because the gov reps negotiated a much better deal on pension matters bilaterally. You must have read or heard all this at the time, it is just a matter of stacking it all up.

Yes if system failure by clever manipulation counts, seems to me that the manipulation went past the point of deception, by circumvention of both treasury and the ministers.

Do you actually know anything about banking and business. There is no way Profitt or any one person would have had the power to authority to approve such a loan or lending. The decision would have been taken by the banks credit committee You know fine well i am talking about his M.E.A dealingS, correct i do not know anything about banking. Do i need to know about banking to know that not one minister was aware that he was signing the loans, treasury must also have been kept out of the loop aswell {i will check about treasury tomorrow}. The above was the whole scandal ffs. Some Ministers/MHKs were furious, and i mean proper, not crocodile, they were for lynching him, SO HIS AND THE BANKS GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD MUSTA BEEN A GOODUN.. I liked him, i worked for him several times, he tucked them and us up, i think.

Cant point you directly to the minutes no, proven fraud you want. Try this how many thousand did he repay them, for his arbitrary usage of his mea checkbook ?. How much did he refund them for flights hotels etc etc for him and his family, when on his new companies business ?. He refunded because it was fraud and had no choice, and his legal team still negotiated on the final amounts and got them slashed, even tho they had him bang to rights . The whole DEBACLE is a cesspit. Proffitt by name profit by nature how much was it his new company made this last year profit 30 mill was it ?. I think the ex mea finance office is a very lucky man to be abig part of that company now, really fallen on his feet.